Dictionnaire de la Globalisation - 82

COM
also often one of the key enablers and enactors of the emergent global scale. A good part of globalization consists of an enormous variety of micro-processes that begin to denationalize what has been constructed as national – whether policies, capital, political subjectivities, urban spaces, temporal frames, or any other of a variety of dynamics and domains. Sometimes these processes of denationalization allow, enable, or push the construction of new types of global scalings of dynamics and institutions ; other times they continue to inhabit the realm of what is still largely national. […] The transformation we are living through is a complex architecture with many distinct working elements, only some of which can easily be coded as globalization. Both self-evidently global and denationalizing dynamics destabilize existing meanings and systems. This raises questions about the future of crucial frameworks through which modern societies, economies, and polities (under the rule of law) have operated : the social democracy as we have come to understand it, modern citizenship, and the formal mechanisms that render some claims legitimate and others illegitimate in liberal democracies. The future of these and other familiar frameworks is rendered dubious by the unbundling, even if very partial, of the basic organizational and normative architectures through which we have operated, especially over the last century. These architectures have held together complex interdependencies between rights and obligations, power and the law, wealth and poverty, allegiance and exit. […] Complex systems are not made ex nihilum. Critical to the analysis […] is the possibility that some capabilities can be shifted toward objectives other than the original ones for which they developed. Also critical is that for this shift to happen a foundational orientation in existing systems must occur (Sassen, 2007 : 1-7).

fashion by this all-powerful “globalization”. Thus globalization (or global capitalism) has come to be viewed as the new “structure”, with nations, localities, regions and so on, the new “agent”, employing the normal social science distinctions but given a kind of global twist. But complexity would suggest that such a system would be diverse, historical, fractured and uncertain. It would be necessary to examine how emergent properties develop at the global level that are neither well ordered and moving towards equilibrium nor in a state of perpetual anarchy. Complexity would lead one to see the global as neither omnipotent nor subject to control by society. Indeed, it is not a single centre of power. It is an astonishingly complex system, or rather a series of dynamic complex systems, a huge array of islands of order within a sea of disorder, as Ilya Prigogine more generally postulates. There would be no presumption of moving towards a state of equilibrium (Urry, 2003 : x). Complexity shows that relatively small perturbations in the capitalist system, such as the shift from an industrial to an informational paradigm, would have produced a branching different from what was predicted by Marx a century and a half ago. Only a relatively small set of causes would have been necessary to generate a radically different emergent outcome, of postFordist “welfare” consumerism rather than worldwide social revolution. Large effects do not necessarily need large causes, since systems out of equilibrium can tip or turn one way or the other through small rather than large changes (Ibid. : 79-80). The epochal transformation we call globalization is taking place inside the national to a far larger extent than is usually recognized. It is here that the most complex meanings of the global are being constituted, and the national is

COMPLEXITÉ (MODÉLISATION DE LA)
Dans un temps où les régulations sont multiples et enchevêtrées, comme l’est celui de la globalisation, on ne peut traiter de la prise de décision sans recours à la modélisation de la complexité. On parle plus précisément de modélisation de la décision complexe en droit, s’agissant de la création de modèles (formes juridiques impures ou contextuelles) propres à permettre de gérer la complexité sociale, c’est-à-dire de résoudre des problèmes par la découverte de solutions satisfaisantes. Le paradigme rationnel systématique complexe inclut la représentation de la complexité des échanges juridiques, moyennant la consécration des principes de la théorie de la complexité. Ces principes sont les suivants : 1°) principe de l’équilibre organisationnel ou de l’organisation elle-même dans la mesure où l’organisation naît de l’information et la transforme pour se retransformer encore ; 2°) principe de décision organisationnelle intelligente : il existe une correspondance fondamentale et récurrente entre information et organisation.

Dictionnaire de la Globalisation

Table des matières de la publication Dictionnaire de la Globalisation